| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT), “I would appreciate some support from my majority leader.” Mansfield replied, “Mr. President, I’m not your majority leader. I’m the Senate's majority leader” (Valeo, 1999, p. 215).9 Thus, inherent in the balancing of constraints are ambiguities surrounding the office, its occupant, its function, and the conditions under which the Senate majority leader will strike the balance in favor of one constituency over another.
A reflection of leaders’ own words shows disparate perspectives on leadership, on both searching for balance and coping with ambiguities. Howard Baker (R-TN), in a memo directed to his constituency or media, but in either case to the public, wrote that his first “duty and responsibility” is “to represent the interest of my Tennessee constituents, [and] to study the many and varied issues confronting our country as a whole.”10 Baker's ranking fits with Mike Mansfield's refrain that he, first, was a senator from Montana:
Each time a constituent questioned his role of majority leader, he reminded him or her, “I was elected by the people of Montana. It is my job to represent them.”12 Baker's and Mansfield's clear philosophy of majority leadership as secondary to their functions as senators is quite different from that of George Mitchell (D-ME), who viewed the post as a national responsibility, and by that time, the prevalence of media ensured that he spoke to a national audience, in addition to his state and the Senate. Mitchell's Senate agenda was a function of “personal interest and where problems are that need to be addressed.”13 “Maine concerns” made the list but were not at the forefront as Baker's and Mansfield's home-state concerns were.
Perhaps it was Lyndon Johnson who philosophized most about his office. With regard to his state, Johnson was nothing if not diplomatic